"Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:2223‫)־‬

as a Key Metaphor in the Overall

Composition of the Parable of the
Rich Man and Lazarus

ALEXEY SOMOV
VITALY VOINOV
Institute for Bible Translation
P.O. Box 360, 101000 Moscow, Russia

Abstract: This article investigates the function of the metaphor “Abraham’s bosom”
(κόλπος Αβραάμ) in Luke 16:2223‫ ־‬using tools borrowed from cognitive linguistics,
specifically Cognitive Metaphor Theory and Conceptual Blending Theory. We argue
that the semantic components of “being in the place of honor at a feast” are essential
to a proper understanding of this metaphor in the context of the parable and should be
reflected in translations of this passage.

Key words: parable · Luke · rich man and Lazarus · Abraham’s bosom ·
cognitive linguistics · Cognitive Metaphor Theory · Conceptual Blending
Theory · image schema

The expression “Abraham’s bosom” (κόλπος Αβραάμ) in Luke 16:2223‫־‬

refers to a certain blessed reality of the righteous. Some early Christian authors
and modem Bible scholars locate it in Hades, with a section reserved for the
blessed righteous that is separated from the rest of Hades by an unbridgeable gulf.1
Others believe that Abraham’s bosom is somewhere in heaven, functioning as a

A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Bible Translation 2015 conference
in Dallas in October 2015. We are grateful to everyone who gave feedback on that presentation, and
also to Roy Ciampa and the two anonymous CBQ reviewers for their helpful comments.
1 In lines 16-33 of the early Christian text De universo, which is often ascribed to Hippolytus
of Rome (third century c.e.), Abraham’s bosom is regarded as the abode of the righteous in Hades
as they await the final judgment. See also Tertullian An. 7.3; Marc. 4.34.1114‫־‬. A. J. Mattill Jr. (Luke
and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought [Dillsboro: Western

615
 616 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

special abode of the righteous as they await their resurrection.2 In this article, we
bypass questions of geography and concentrate on the meaning of “Abraham’s
bosom,” its function in the context of the Lucan parable of the rich man and
Lazarus, and different approaches to translating it.
“Abraham’s bosom” is a unique expression that does not occur elsewhere in
the Bible or in Jewish writings of the period, with the exception of a few later ones
(see section III). In this article, we suggest that being in Abraham s bosom is a
metaphor that plays a key role in the composition of Luke 16:1931‫־‬. Applying
Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Conceptual Blending Theory to our analysis, we
argue that it represents a complex concept involving fellowship at a banquet/feast.
Luke makes an opposition between two banquets: although there is no place for
Lazarus at the earthly banquet at which the inhospitable rich man feasted, he is
granted the most honored position at the heavenly banquet hosted by Abraham,
who is known from the Genesis narrative for his hospitality. This parallelism is
highlighted by the key metaphor of Abraham’s bosom, which unfortunately is not
well understood by most Bible translators. In English translations, for example, it
is typically rendered either literally or without any connection to the idea of a
banquet. We close the article by examining various approaches to this metaphor
in Bible translations in various languages and make recommendations about the
semantic components that should be included in future translations to convey
Luke’s intended sense.
Before getting to the analysis of this specific Lucan metaphor, we briefly
present some basic features of Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Conceptual
Blending Theory.

I. Cognitive Metaphor Theory and Conceptual Blending Theory

Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT), also known as Conceptual Metaphor
Theory, was developed by American linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson
in the 1980s. CMT regards metaphor not just as one characteristic of language out
of many but rather as a central part of the process of human thinking and acting in
general.3 Our conceptual system, in terms of which we think and act, is fundamen-

North Carolina Press, 1979] 31-32) and J. Osei-Bonsu (“The Intermediate State in Luke-Acts,” IBS
9 [1987] 115-30, here 121-22) also consider it to be a blessed part of Hades.
2 Joachim Jeremias, The Parables ofJesus (2nd rev. ed.; New York: Scribner, 1972) 184. Adolf
Jülicher associates Abraham’s bosom with paradise: “Für einen Juden jener Zeit schliesst ‘in
Abraham’s Schlosssein’ das ‘im Garten Eden sein’ als Bezeichnung der Seligkeit ein” {Die Gleich-
nisreden Jesu [2 vols.; Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1899] 2:623) Richard Bauckham also supports this
view (“Hades, HellfABD 3:15).
3 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1980); George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic
Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22-23) 617

tally metaphorical in nature. Metaphor allows us to comprehend certain aspects of

more abstract concepts in terms of other, “lower-level” concepts from everyday
human experience.
Two types of conceptual metaphors are particularly relevant for the present
article: structural metaphors and orientational metaphors. In structural metaphors,
one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another.4 In orientational
metaphors, the source domain is centered in a person’s embodied experience of
reality, with the features of the human body and its orientation to the physical world
providing basic dimensions for metaphorical extensions.5 In these metaphors, real-
ity is often categorized in the form of image schemas, basic primitives that provide
a type of meaning closely associated with a particular kind of embodied experi-
ence, such as Up-Down, Inside-Outside, Center-Periphery, Near-Far, Container-
Contained, Whole-Part, Left-Right, Front-Back, First-Last, and so forth.
One of the further developments of CMT is Conceptual Blending Theory
(CBT), which argues that “meaning construction typically involves integration of
structure that gives rise to more than the sum of its parts.”6 The basics of this
theory were developed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner.7 According to CBT,
our mind constructs partial matches between two inputs (mental spaces or con-
cepts) and projects these matches into a new “blended” mental space. It then devel-
ops a new meaning with an emergent structure that is not in the inputs. This process
is called conceptual integration or blending and is a basic human cognitive opera-
tion. Fauconnier and Turner describe conceptual blending in terms of the so-called
integration network, which in its basic form consists of four mental spaces: two
input spaces (partly matched with each other), a generic space built by structure
common to these inputs, and the blended space (see fig. 1, p. 618).
According to CBT, various vital relations in the blend, such as time, space,
cause-effect, identity, and change, can be compressed, as it happens, for instance,
in the computer desktop interface: moving the arrow with the mouse causes a
complex sequence of events in the software and compresses space, cause-effect,
and change.8

4 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 14.

5 Leonard Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Language, Speech, and Communication;
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000); Mark Johnson, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of
Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).
6Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2006) 400.
7 Gilles Fauconnier, Mappings in Thought and Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997); Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the
Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002).
8 For instance, in Fauconnier and Turner’s “space compression,” physically distinct inputs can
have a single physical space in the blend; see Fauconnier and Turner, Way We Think, 96.
 618 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

Generic Space

Cross-space Mapping
Input Space 1 Input Space 2

Selective Projection

Blended Space

Figure i . The Integration Network in Conceptual Blending Theory9

Fauconnier and Turner distinguish four main types of conceptual integration

networks that constitute conceptual blends: Simplex, Mirror, Single-Scope, and
Double-Scope.910 Metaphorical integrations are usually built by means of the two
latter network types.11 For the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to describe a
single-scope network. This type of network “has two input spaces with different
organizing frames, one of which is projected to organize the blend. Its defining
property is that the organizing frame of the blend is an extension of the organizing
frame of one of the inputs but not the other.”12 Thus, in this network the blend
inherits only one of the input space frames. The relevant part of this frame is pro-
jected with its roles into the blend, while the elements from the other input are
projected as the values of these roles. Such a network does not have any clashes
between the organizing frames of the inputs, because the second input does not
project its own organizing frame that could compete with the frame of the first
input. As an example, Fauconnier and Turner offer the metaphor of competition.
There are two business competitors, named Murdoch and Iacocca. The blend con-
sists of two inputs: input 1 is boxing (the source input), input 2 is corporate bust-
ness (target input). In the metaphor “Murdoch knocked Iacocca out,” the frame
“knocked out” is taken from the source input, while “Murdoch” and “Iacocca”
belong to the target input.13 This metaphor inherits a higher-order conventional

9This figure is adapted from Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Conceptual Blending,
Form and Meaning,” Recherches en communication 19 (2003) 57-86, here 59.
10Fauconnier and Turner, Way We Think, 119-35.
11Ibid., 154.
12Ibid., 126. By “frame,” they mean a schematic organization of experiential knowledge,
represented at the conceptual level and held in long-term memory (e.g., car frame, buying gasoline
frame, calling by phone frame); see Vyvyan Evans, A Glossary ofCognitive Linguistics (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2007) 87.
13 Fauconnier and Turner, Way We Think, 127.
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22619 (23‫־‬

metaphorical mapping that Lakoff and Johnson call a basic metaphor.14 In this
example, it is the basic metaphor competition is combat.
The combined use of CMT and CBT can be very productive for exploring
biblical literature.15 Like other religious texts, the Bible uses religious language in
which abstract, divine, and supernatural concepts are represented by metaphori-
cal expressions that are based on regular, finite human experience.16 In the fol-
lowing sections, we apply aspects of both approaches to analyze the metaphor
of Abraham’s bosom in Luke 16:1931‫־‬.

II. A Reversal of Fates and Two Banquets in Luke 16:19-31

In Jesus’ parable as recorded in Luke 16:1931‫ ־‬the difference between the rich
man and Lazarus in both their earthly social position and their postmortem state is
brought out by the spatial distinction between them.17 *The NRSVs fairly literal
translation of the parable is provided below:
19There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted
sumptuously every day. 20And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with
sores,21 who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even
the dogs would come and lick his sores. 22The poor man died and was carried away
by the angels to be with Abraham [lit., “in Abraham’s bosom”]. The rich man also died
and was buried. 23In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw
Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side [lit., “in his bosom”]. 24He called out,
“Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in
water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.” 25But Abraham said,
“Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and
Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.
26Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who
might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to
us.” 27He said, “Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house— 28for I have
five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place
of torment.” 29Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should
listen to them.” 30He said, “No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from

14 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 45.

15 These methods have been used, for instance, in Jacobus Liebenberg, The Language of the
Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the
Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas (BZNW 102; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001); and
Frederick S. Tappenden, “Luke and Paul in Dialogue: Ritual Meals and Risen Bodies as Instances
of Embodied Cognition,” in Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (ed. Geert
van Oyen and Tom Shepherd; BETL 249; Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 201-28.
16 Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according
to John (BIS 47; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 22.
17Alexey Somov, ‘“He Lifted Up His Eyes’: Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of
Cognitive Interpretation,” Journal ofBiblical Text Research 35 (2014) 291-309, here 302.
 620 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

the dead, they will repent.” 31He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

In terms of CMT this difference between Lazarus and the rich man is indicated
by the use of four basic image schemas: Up-Down, Inside-Outside, Center-
Periphery, and Container. We will take a close look at only the first one (Up-Down)
here. In ancient Eastern Mediterranean culture, as well as in many other cultures
around the world, orientational metaphors expressing personal well-being (good
fortune, honor, happiness, prosperity, health, purity, life, etc.) are often represented
by up of the Up-Down image schema (e.g., “she will rise to the top”; “his spirits
are high today”). The physical basis for personal misfortune, misery, distress,
humiliation, disease, uncleanness, and death is, on the contrary, seen in terms of
down (e.g., “he’s at the bottom of the social hierarchy”; “things are at an all-time
low”).18 This image schema plays an important role in Luke’s telling of the parable
as well. In Luke 16:19-21 Lazarus lies at the rich man’s gate (occupying a lower
position), while the latter feasts in his house (being in a higher position). The poor
man longs to eat what falls (the lower position) from the rich man’s table (the
higher position). Then, in 16:22-23, their fates are reversed after they die: the rich
man is buried (the lower position), while the angels come from heaven on high and
carry Lazarus away to Abraham’s bosom (presumably the higher position, far away
from where the rich man finds himself). In v. 23, Luke uses the spatial difference
between the postmortem positions of the rich man and Lazarus to mark the differ-
ence in their afterlife status: the lower position the rich man occupies in Hades
corresponds to his worse fate and humiliated condition, while the higher position
of Lazarus (as well as Abraham) marks his honorable and exalted state. The ori-
entational metaphor used for the wicked rich man—down—confirms that he is
condemned; the orientational metaphor used for the righteous Lazarus—up—
stands for the blessed reality reserved for him.19
In terms of CBT, this distinction can be formulated as a single-scope network
(see Blend A in fig. 2 on p. 621), with the earthly life experience (Input 1) serving
as the organizational frame onto which the values of the afterlife (Input 2) are
projected.
Besides this metaphorical spatial distinction, the reversal of fates is also sup-
ported by the parable’s use of banquet imagery. In the first part of the parable, the
rich man hosted great feasts every day during his earthly life, but Lazarus was never
invited there as his guest and always lacked food: “he longed to satisfy his hunger
with what fell from the rich man’s table” (v. 21 NRSV). In the hereafter, their fates
are changed and now it is the rich man who is suffering from thirst due to the flames
in Hades (vv. 23-24). This point should be taken not only as an indication of the

18 Somov, “He Lifted Up His Eyes,” 303-4. The examples are taken from Lakoff and Johnson,
Metaphors We Live By, 16, 18.
19 Somov, “He Lifted Up His Eyes,” 302, 304.
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22-23) 621

rich man’s postmortem suffering but also as pointing to the fact that Lazarus does
not hunger in the afterlife (cf. v. 21).20 In other words, the opposition of hunger
and satiation plays an additional role in the reversal of fates in this story. The
reversal of fates is prominent not only in this parable but also in some other pas-
sages in Luke, with the beatitudes and woes of 6:2026‫ ־‬as a prime example.21

Generic Space:
Image Schema

/UP\1
/downXT

Input Space 1: Earthl1 nit Space 2: The Afterlife

Good Fortune T \ THeaven
Honor # \ Better Fate
Health ‫ץ‬ ‫ ן‬Exaltation
Purity \ / Righteousness
/ -*-Eternal life

Misfortune ‫־ ־‬Underworld (Hades, Sheol)

Humiliation iq Worse Fate
Disease Punishment
/ Humiliation
Uncleanness
Death . -Wickedness

t \ Blended Space: / ψ
The lower position of me wicked/Hades/the worse Me and humiliated state/
the higher position of the righteous/heaven/the honorable and exalted state

Blend A: The righteous are higher than the wicked in the afterlife

Figure 2. Conceptual Blend A—The righteous are higher than the wicked in the
afterlife.

Moreover, meal imagery in this story accesses the idea of a heavenly ban-
quet in the abode ofjhe righteous in the hereafter, a metaphor mentioned several
times in the Gospel of Luke.22 Earlier in the Gospel (13:28-29) Jesus describes

20 Peter-Ben Smit, Fellowship and Food in the Kingdom: Eschatological Meals and Scenes
of Utopian Abundance in the New Testament (WUNT 2/234; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 177.
21 See the more detailed exploration of the reversal of fates in Luke in Outi Lehtipuu, The
Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story ofthe Rich Man and Lazarus (NovTSup 123; Leiden: Brill, 2007)
28 n. 87; 171-73.
22 Luke’s use of banquet imagery is discussed in Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story,
216.
 622 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

the kingdom that God has prepared for believers as an eschatological banquet
attended by heroes of the faith such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob :

28There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out.
29Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the
kingdom of God. (NRSV)23

Next, the parable of the Great Supper (14:1524‫ )־‬starts with an exclamation regard-
ing the bliss of those who eat bread in the kingdom of God (14:15). In addition,
Jesus promises his disciples that they will eat and drink at his table in this kingdom
(22:29‫־‬30).
In Jewish literature of the period and in the NT, the imagery of eating and
drinking is also connected with the idea that the righteous will be granted to eat
from the Tree of Life at the end of time (4 Ezra 2:12; 8:52; Rev 2:7)24 and to have
food similar to manna (Rev 2:17; cf. John 6:3158‫)־‬. The righteous will enjoy a
heavenly meal in paradise in the company of Adam and the patriarchs (2 Enoch
42:5) and will never be hungry (2 Apoc. Bar. 29:56‫ ;־‬Apoc. El. 1:10; 3:61; cf. Deut
28:11 ; Isa 33:1525.(49:10 ;16‫ ־‬There are several conceptual blends behind this idea
that can be retrieved. First, we can explore a single-scope network that produces
the following blend: receiving eternal life is a heavenly meal. In other words, for
Luke some features of receiving eternal life in heaven are similar to (or structured
by) some features of having a meal. The elements of the frame receiving eternal
life are used as values for the roles of the frame meal that are projected onto this
blend (see Blend B in fig. 3 on p. 623).
The next important blend can be expressed as follows: the blessed afterlife
prepared for the righteous is a heavenly banquet. Here, some features of the
blessed fate of the righteous are similar to those of the banquet in heaven. The main
idea of this blend is union between God and the righteous, who will receive eternal
life. The blend is shown in figure 4 (p. 624).

23 Matthew 8:11, the parallel verse to Luke 13:29, directly states that believers will recline to
eat (άνακλιθήσονται) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.
24 According to 1 Enoch 25:45‫־‬, the risen righteous will receive the fruit of the fragrant tree
that will give them a blessed, but not eternal, life (as Enoch’s ancestors had) without torments,
plagues, or suffering (cf. 1 Enoch 10:1617‫)־‬. The nature of this fragrant tree and its relation to the
Tree of Life are matters of debate among scholars. For instance, as Veronika Bachmann argues, the
metaphor of this tree represents the concept of wisdom (cf. Prov. 3:18; 11:30; 13:2; 15:4; Sir 24:12‫־‬
17) granted to all the chosen ones (1 Enoch 5:89‫“( )־‬Rooted in Paradise? The Meaning of the ‘Tree
of Life’ in 1 Enoch 24-25 Reconsidered,” JSP 19 [2009] 83-107, esp. 99-104)..
25 Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in Luke ’s Story, 217-18.
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22-23) 623

Generic Space:
‫ ־‬Supplies vital energy
- Provides life

Input Space 1: Meal Input Space 2: Receiving

‫ ־‬Food and drink supports Eternal Life
biological life - The source of eternal life (i.e., the Tree of
- Quenches thirst and hunger Life) gives eternal life in heaven
- It delivers from death

Blended Space:
- Food and drink /eternal life
■No hunger, no thirst/no death

Blend B: Receiving eternal life is a heavenly meal

Figure 3. Conceptual Blend B—Receiving eternal life is a heavenly meal.

The conceptual blend in figure 4 uses two image schemas for the concept of
union with God—Inside-Outside and Near-Far—and recruits Blend B {receiving
eternal life is a heavenly meal) as part of Input 2.26 In this single-scope network
the scenario of Input Space 1, earthly banquet‫ י‬is projected onto the blend. At the
same time, the elements of Input Space 2, the blessed state of the righteous, serve
as values for the roles of the earthly banquet frame in the blend.

26 As Frederick Tappenden shows, the concept of union consists of the interplay of two image
schemas: containment (Inside-Outside) and proximity (Near-Far) (“Luke and Paul in Dialogue,”
212). The Near-Far schema is based on our understanding of proximity in social relations: we are
intimate with those who are close to us, while we keep at a distance from those with whom we do
not want to associate. The Inside-Outside schema is based on our sense that our skin defines the
extent of our bodies so that there are things inside and outside of it. This helps us to build the
opposition Inclusiveness/Exclusiveness, which is also important for how we perceive the relations
of unity and separation in social groups. For instance, this opposition can be used for constructing
boundaries that shape the group’s self-identification and separate it from outsiders.
 624 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

Generic Space:
Images Schemas
Inside-Outside, Near-Far
- Hospitality
- Selectivity
- Proximity
- Fellowship

Input Space 1: Earthly Banquet Input Space 2: The Blessed State of the
- The host receives guests Righteous
- The invited people are specially - God or God’s agent (e.g., Messiah) is the
selected heavenly host receiving the righteous
- The most honored guests are closest - The place is reserved only for those regarded as
to the host righteous
- The host and his guests enjoy - The most exalted righteous are closest to the
fellowship and unity heavenly host (cf. Matt 20:23; Luke 22:30)
- They share physical food - The heavenly host and the righteous enjoy
fellowship and unity
- The righteous share heavenly food (are given
eternal life)

Blended Space:
- The host receives guests/the heavenly host
receives the righteous
- Selected people/the chosen righteous
- The most honored guests are closest to the
host/ the most exalted righteous are closest to the
heavenly host
- Fellowship and unity/ heavenly fellowship and
unity
- Sharing food / receiving eternal life

Blend C: The blessed afterlife prepared for the righteous is

a heavenly banquet

Figure 4. Conceptual Blend C—The blessed afterlife preparedfor the righteous

is a heavenly banquet.

III. Abraham’s Bosom and the Heavenly Banquet

Now we arrive at the key issue of this article, the function of “Abraham’s
bosom” in the parable. We can start by asking two preliminary questions: For Luke,
what role does Abraham play at the heavenly banquet? And what exactly does it
mean to be in his bosom?
In Jewish literature Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sometimes appear as those
who receive the souls of the righteous in the hereafter. Thus, according to 4 Macc
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22-23) 625

7:19 and 16:25, in relation to God they did not die but live (ζώσιν τψ θεψ; cf. Luke
20:3738‫)־‬. In 4 Macc 13:17, they are ready to receive the souls of martyrs. As
Lehtipuu shows, this idea may represent a development of the image of sleeping
with one’s ancestors found in the Hebrew Bible and cognate Jewish literature (see
Gen 15:15; 1 Kgs 1:21; 2:10; 11:21; 4 Macc 13:17).27 At first this notion meant
only a shadowy existence in Sheol, but it later developed into the idea that the
patriarchs are active in the afterlife, “ready to receive the righteous dead and asso-
cíate with them in the blissful life.”28 Some scholars even argue that the metaphor
of Abraham’s bosom may represent a development of this idea.29 As mentioned in
the introduction, this metaphor is not found elsewhere in the Bible but does appear
in a few later Jewish texts, where it indeed refers to the afterlife. First, the Testa-
ment ofAbraham (first-second centuries c.e.) describes Abraham as having been
taken into paradise to his own bosom (έν τψ κόλπψ αύτου) (T Abr. A. 20:14). Since
many Christian elements were incorporated into the Testament ofAbraham, it is
possible that this expression was derived from Luke 16:22. The same motif is
found in rabbinic literature, where Hebrew ‫“( חיק‬bosom”) is used in the context of
carrying the dead to Abraham’s bosom: ‫( בחיקו של אברהם‬b. Qid. 72a-b; Pesiq.
Rabbati 180b). The meaning of this Hebrew expression is “by no means certain,”
as C. H. Cave states.30 Moreover, these examples are rather late and do not provide
sufficient evidence that “Abraham’s bosom” was a special and widespread techni-
cal term for the abode of the righteous at the time Luke wrote his Gospel. In addi-
tion, as Ronald F. Hock demonstrates, κόλπος was often used in Hellenistic
epitaphs.31 According to Lehtipuu, however, the use of κόλπος in epitaphs usually
represents the idea of the earth covering the dead.32
Furthermore, among the three patriarchs Abraham is the most prominent fig-
ure. According to Genesis, he was blessed in a special way and his name became
great (12:2); God made a covenant with him (17:2, 7-8); righteousness is imputed
to him for his faith (15:6); and he is granted a promise to inherit Canaan (17:8).
Abraham was considered to be the father of the Jewish people and, moreover, of
many nations (17:4-6).

27 Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story, 207-8.

28 Ibid., 208. In addition, Lehtipuu (p. 209) mentions John 8:56, an interesting passage in
which Abraham is also active in the eschatological context.
29 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes
(2 vols.; AB 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985) 2:1132.
30 Cyril H. Cave, “Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy,” NTS 15 (1969) 319-25, here 323.
According to Cave, in its immediate context this expression can be interpreted either as a euphemism
for death or paradise, or as indicating membership in the people of Israel. See also Lehtipuu, Afterlife
Imagery in Luke s Story, 276 n. 39.
31 Ronald F. Hock, “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31,”
JBL 106 (1987) 447-63, here 456.
32 Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story, 215-16.
 626 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

All this becomes important for Luke, who without doubt regarded Abraham
as a very significant figure. As Lehtipuu points out, seven of the twelve passages
in Luke-Acts that mention Abraham (Luke 1:4617‫־‬55,67‫־‬79; 3:
2840‫־‬29; 16:19‫־‬31; 19:1‫־‬10; 20:27‫ ;־‬Acts 3:134
patriarch as the father of Israel (Luke 1:55; 3:8; 13:16; 16:2219:9 ;31‫ ;־‬Acts 3:25;
13:26).33 Moreover, Abraham is active in the afterlife (Luke 16:1938‫־‬31; 20:37‫)־‬.
In exploring the question of how Abraham’s bosom relates to the idea of the
blessed afterlife of the righteous, it is also useful to analyze the concept of being
in someone s bosom in biblical and cognate literature. In addition to the meaning
of being gathered with the righteous ancestors as discussed above, this concept
may also reflect at least two other images—a child lying in its parent’s embrace
and proximity of a guest to the host at a banquet. Let us look at each of these images
in some detail.

A. A Child Lying in Its Parent s Embrace

The use of κόλπος in the sense of a child lying in its parents embrace is found
several times in the LXX and would have been familiar to Greek-speaking diaspora
Jews:
1. “Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your
bosom [LXX εις τον κόλπον σου], as a nurse carries a sucking child,’ to
the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors?” (Num 11:12 NRSV).
2. “Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom [LXX εις τον
κόλπον αύτής], and became his nurse” (Ruth 4:16 NRSV).
3. “Their life is poured out on their mothers’ bosom [LXX εις κόλπον
μητέρων αύτών]” (Lam 2:12 NRSV).
4. “He took him from her bosom [LXX έκ του κόλπου αύτής], carried him
up into the upper chamber where he was lodging” (1 Kgs 17:19 NRSV).
5. “It [a ewe lamb] used to eat of his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and
lie in his bosom [LXX έν τω κόλπω αύτού], and it was like a daughter to
him” (2 Sam 12:3 NRSV). In this example, the poor man in Nathan’s par-
able (2 Sam 12:14‫ )־‬embraces his little lamb as though it were his child.

In the NT, this meaning of κόλπος is attested in John 1:18, where it is used in
the metaphor of the Son of God being close to the Father: “The only Son, who is
in the bosom of the Father [εις τον κόλπον τού πατρός]” (John 1:18 RSV). Some
translations render the meaning of intimacy in this expression as “close to the
Father’s heart” (NRSV, NJB) or “in closest relationship with the Father” (NIV),
which is conveyed by the metaphor of a child (the Son) in the embrace of his par‫־‬
ent (the Father).

33 Ibid., 210.
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22-23) 627

B. Proximity of a Guest to the Host at the Banquet

The idea of reclining next to the host at the same dining couch in the closest
and most honored position appears in John 13:23: “One of his disciples—the one
whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him” (NRSV; έν τω κόλπω του Ιησού,
lit., on “Jesus’ bosom”). The idea is also found in 2 Clem. 4:5, probably alluding
to John 13:23: “If you are gathered with me close to my breast [έν τω κόλπω μου,
lit., “in my bosom”], yet you do not keep my commandments, I will throw you out
and say to you: ‘Get away from me, I do not know where you are from, you
evildoers.’”34 Although Paul Haupt argues that “at ancient dinners the guests were
not packed like sardines,”35 the beloved disciple could still recline at the same
dining couch with Jesus during that supper and be in the closest, most honored
position next to Jesus.36 Indeed, such a place of honor is described in Pliny the
Younger’s letter: “He spoke no less courageously in the presence of the emperor
Nerva, who was dining with a few people. Veiento was next to him, and snuggled
up against him [in sinu recumbebat, lit., “laid on his chest]” (Ep. 4.22.4).37
Moreover, in patristic literature, the posture of reclining in the host’s bosom
while at table is expressed by κόλπος. John Chrysostom quotes Matt 8:11 as fol-
lows: Πολλοί άπό άνατολών καί δυσμών ήξουσι, και άνακλιθήσονται εις τούς
κόλπους Αβραάμ και Ισαάκ και Ιακώβ (“Many will come from the east and west
and recline in the bosoms of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob”; In Matthaeum Horn.
26 [PG 57:335.26-29]). Chrysostom adds the phrase “in the bosoms” even though
this was not mentioned in the text of Matthew that he is citing.38
Philip F. Esler argues that the imagery of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom refers
to the messianic banquet, as it represents a reclining dining posture.39 Since the

34 Michael W. Holmes, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Trans‫־‬
lation (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 143.
35 Paul Haupt, “Abraham’s Bosom,” AJP 42 (1921) 162-67, here 162. Haupt is correct, of
course, in that it is very doubtful that the phrase κόλπος Αβραάμ in Luke 16:22 projected the image
of Abraham on his dining couch eating in a recumbent posture when Lazarus was brought to him by
the angels. “Abraham’s bosom” should not be taken as a metaphorical representation of a literal feast.
36 Haupt claims that the beloved disciple leaned back toward Jesus just to ask him a question
(“Abraham’s Bosom,” 163-64). Nevertheless, he admits that if the Last Supper was organized in
the same manner as Roman feasts, there were three couches (the triclinium) on three sides of a square
table and Jesus occupied the couch on the left side, sharing it with his closest disciples John, James,
and Peter.
37 Pliny the Younger, Complete Letters (trans. P. G. Walsh; Oxford World’s Classics; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006) 101. See also Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 184; and Fitzmyer,
Gospel according to Luke, 2:1132.
38 Cf. Matt 8:11: λέγω δέ ύμίν οτι πολλοί άπό άνατολών και δυσμών ήξουσιν καί άνακλιθή-
σονται μετά Αβραάμ κα'ιΊσαάκ κα'ιΙακώβ έν τή βασιλεία τών ούρανών (“I tell you, many will come
from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”
[AftSF]).
39 Philip F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations
 628 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

Messiah does not explicitly appear together with Abraham and Lazarus in this
parable, it is disputable whether in the strict sense of the term this banquet is mes-
sianic and completely identical to the feast in Luke 13:2830‫־‬. Nonetheless, it is
safe to speak about a heavenly banquet in 16:2223‫־‬. Furthermore, as I. Howard
Marshall and Lehtipuu indicate, these two images are not mutually exclusive and
may be combined in 16:22, suggesting both Lazarus’s honored position at a heav-
enly banquet and his close communion with Abraham.40 Thus, it is fully reasonable
to see Lazarus in this parable as being in close fellowship with Abraham at a
banquet.

IV. Abraham’s Bosom as a Conceptual Blend

There is a significant feature of the Abraham narrative in Genesis that facili-
tates the projection of “Abraham’s bosom” onto the heavenly feast: Abraham dem-
onstrated great hospitality when he hosted the three heavenly guests at the Oak of
Mamre (Gen 18:141.(8‫ ־‬Chrysostom expresses this idea in his homily on Lazarus:

Άξιον δέ κάκεΐνο ζητήσαι, τί δήποτε ούχι παρ’ έτέρω δικαίω τον Λάζαρον όρά, άλλ’ εν
τοίς κόλποις είδε του Αβραάμ. Φιλόξενος ήν ό Αβραάμ· ϊν’ ούν και ούτος έλεγχος αύτω
γένηται τής μισοξενίας, διά τούτο αυτόν μετ’ έκείνου βλέπει. Εκείνος γάρ καί τούς
παριόντας έθήρευε, καί εις τήν οικίαν είλκεν εϊσω τήν εαυτού· ούτος δέ κα'ι τον έσω
κείμενον παρεώρα, καί θησαυρόν τοσούτον εχων καί σωτηρίας ύπόθεσιν, παρέτρεχε
καθ’ έκάστην ή μέραν, καί ούκ έχρήσατο εις δέον τή τού πένητος προστασία.
It is worthy of investigating why he [the rich man] sees Lazarus not with any other
righteous person, but in Abraham’s bosom. Abraham was hospitable; this is why he
[the rich man] sees him with the other [Lazarus], so that he [Abraham] would be a
reproach of his inhospitality. For he [Abraham] searched for those who passed by and
brought them into his house, while that one [the rich man] disregarded even the one
who lay inside his house. He had such a great treasure and the foundation of salvation,
but overlooked this every single day and did not support the poor as he should have.
{De Lazaro 2.5 [PG 48:988.4857‫ ;]־‬our translation).42

ofLucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 193. Esler refers
to R. Meyer’s entry on κόλπος in TDNT 3:825. Meyer mentions the messianic banquet as one
possible intepretation: “In the first instance we are to think in terms of the feast of the blessed at
which Lazarus takes the place of honour.”
401. Howard Marshall, The Gospel ofLuke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 636; Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in Lukes Story, 215. Contra Haupt,
“Abraham’s Bosom”; and Smit, Fellowship and Food, 168-69.
41 Luke may also be pointing to the intertextual connection between Luke 16:23 and Gen 18:2
with the phrase “He lifted up his eyes.” Note, however, that two different verbs (έπαίρω and
άναβλέπω) are used in these verses. See the cognitive analysis of “he lifted up his eyes” in Luke
16:23 in Somov, “He Lifted Up His Eyes,” 291-309.
42 A similar idea appears in Chrysostom’s Homiliae in Acta apostolorum {Horn. Act. 45 [PG
60:318‫־‬20]).
 ‘ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22629 (23‫־‬

This story from Genesis 18 provides an important input to the blend close fellow-
ship with Abraham at the heavenly banquet is being in Abraham s bosom. Two
other inputs to this blend are one who takes someone in his/her bosom, including
all features of being at someone’s bosom (a child lying in its parent’s embrace; the
proximity of a guest to the host at a banquet; being gathered with the righteous
ancestors) and the host ofthe heavenly banquet, which is partly structured by Blend
C above.
In Conceptual Blend D (see fig. 5) some features of the frames and concepts
in the three input spaces are cross-space mapped, while the generic space that uses
the concept of union (consisting of the image schemas of proximity and contain-
ment) maps to each of these inputs. The roles of the frame one who takes someone
in his/her bosom are projected into the blend; the elements from the concept of
Abraham and the frame the host of the heavenly banquet are projected as the
values of these roles. In the emergent structure of this blend, Abraham appears as
God’s agent who acts as the host at such a banquet. This blending results in the
metaphor closefellowship with Abraham at the heavenly banquet is being in Abra-
ham s bosom. In this source-target metaphor, Input Space 1 is a framing input that
projects its source features onto this blend. The features of Input Space 2 and Input
Space 3 are used in its target domain.

Generic Space:
- Close fellowship
- Hospitality

Input Space 1: One Who Takes
Someone in His/Her Bosom
‫ ־‬A parent who has a close relationship
with his/her child
- A host at a banquet who gives the most
honored guest the place closest to him
- A righteous ancestor who receives the
soul of his relative
Input Space 2: Abraham
- The father of Israel who is close
to his descendants
- A hospitable host (Gen 18)
- Active in the afterlife receiving the
souls of the righteous
Input Space 3: The Host of the
Heavenly Banquet
- The heavenly host (God or God’s
agent) receives the righteous
‫ ־‬He takes the most exalted righteous
closest to him
- The heavenly host and the righteous
enjoy fellowship and unity

Blended Space: One who

takes someone in his bosom/
Abraham/the host of the
heavenly banquet

Blend D: Close fellowship with Abraham at the heavenly banquet is

being in Abraham’s bosom

Figure 5: Conceptual Blend D - Close fellowship with Abraham at the heavenly

banquet is being in Abraham s bosom.
 630 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

Thus, there are two significant features of the expression “Abraham’s bosom”
that cannot be separated: it simultaneously refers both to close fellowship and to
a banquet. This plays a key role in the overall composition of the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus. The features of the banquet concept work in this story as
follows: in the earthly reality it is the rich man who is feasting and hosting the
banquet. However, his hospitality extends only to his friends, and he never even
invites Lazarus into his house. In contrast, Abraham, who invited three strangers
(not his close friends) for a feast in Gen 18:18‫־‬, gives Lazarus the beggar the most
honored and exalted place at the heavenly banquet in the afterlife, the place closest
to Abraham himself.43 This compositional opposition is presented in the table
below:
Table i. Oppositions between the Rich Man’s Earthly Banquet
and Abraham’s Heavenly Banquet

The Earthly Banquet of the Rich Man The Heavenly Banquet

The rich man is hospitable only to his Abraham shows hospitality to Laza-
earthly guests. rus as he did to the three heavenly
messengers.
Lazarus is far away from the rich man, Lazarus is close to Abraham, the host.
the host.
The rich man is satisfied with his Lazarus is satisfied with the heavenly
physical food. food.
Lazarus hungers. The rich man thirsts.

We can see that if the banqueting component were to be removed from the meta-
phor of Abraham’s bosom, this metaphor would lose a significant part of its mean-
ing. Moreover, as shown in table 1, this metaphor plays an important part in the
overall composition of the parable. Its structure is symmetrical. This makes the
reversal of the fates of the rich man and Lazarus more salient. If the banqueting
component of this metaphor were left out, the symmetry in Luke’s composition
would break down at least partially. Moreover, our parable can be regarded as an
extended illustration of the promises of satiation for the hungry in the kingdom of
God (6:21) and hunger for those who are full now (6:25). These promises are also
a symmetrical reversal and deal with a contrasting pair of those whose condition
will be reversed.

43 In 16:2223‫־‬, Luke probably alludes to 13:2829‫־‬, which brings together the elements of a
feast (an eschatological heavenly banquet) and being with Abraham (among the patriarchs at the
heavenly banquet). In contrast with 13:2829‫־‬, however, where Abraham participates in the eschato-
logical banquet, in 16:2223‫ ־‬Luke refers to an event not in the distant eschatological future but
immediately after Lazarus’s death.
 ‘ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22-23) 631

Several of the image schemas and concepts discussed above occur bundled
together in other places in Luke’s Gospel as well, confirming that they were con-
nected with each other in Luke’s thinking. For instance, in Luke 14:711‫ ־‬we find
the schemas Up-Down and First-Last co-occurring with the concepts of feasting
and honor.
7When [Jesus] noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a par-
able. 8“When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at
the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by
your host; 9and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this
person your place,’ and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place [τον
έσχατον τόπον]. 10But when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest [έσχατον]
place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher
[άνώτερον]’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with
you. 11For all who exalt [ύ\|/ών] themselves will be humbled, and those who humble
themselves will be exalted [ύψωθήσεται].” (NRSV)

The NRSV adapted the First-Last schema activated by the Greek word έσχατον,
rendering it as also part of the Up-Down schema in English (“lowest” in v. 10).

V. Translating Abraham’s Bosom

For Bible translators, gaining a proper understanding of a biblical metaphor’s
underlying semantic features and cognitive associations is only the first half of the
task; the second half is rendering the metaphor successfully in the language into
which the Bible is being translated. Much has been written on translating biblical
metaphors by practitioners of the dynamic/functional equivalence approach and
those who apply the insights of relevance theory to Bible translation.44 In the
concluding part of this article, we outline four possible approaches to rendering
the concept of Abraham’s bosom when translating Luke’s Gospel. Each of these
has been adopted by at least one existing Bible translation among the world’s
languages. The approaches differ primarily in the level of explicitness they apply
to rendering the crucial meaning components that we have argued above were
present in this metaphor in its source culture.
The least explicit approach is the literal one, which uses a single recipient
language term as a one-to-one equivalent of the Greek term κόλπος. Thus, we have
“Abraham’s bosom” in the English KJV and RSV, “Abraham’s embrace” in the

44 See, e.g., Harriet Hill, Ernest-August Gutt, Margaret Hill, Christopher Unger, and Rick
Floyd, Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a Relevant Way (Dallas: SIL Inter-
national, 2011) 260-70. The dynamic/functional equivalence approach is given, e.g., in Eugene Nida
and Charles Russell Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Helps for Translators 8; Leiden:
Brill, 1969); Katharine Barnwell, Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Prin-
ciples (3rd ed.; Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1986).
 632 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 79,2017

English AUS or the Russian lono Avraamovo, with the archaic lono meaning some-
thing like “lap, breast, womb,” which is typically used to indicate a mother’s
tender care for her children. Although this is the easiest approach because it
requires a minimum of interpretation on the translator’s part, it typically results in
a translation that is unintelligible or that can be misconstrued. For the original
audience, it is unlikely that the Greek κόλπος evoked associations of femininity
or specifically maternal care in the context of the obviously male Abraham. Intro-
ducing such connotations in relation to Abraham in a translation, therefore, as the
English term “bosom” does, can be quite misleading.
A slightly less literal approach restructures the noun κόλπος as a word in the
recipient language that focuses on Lazarus’s spatial proximity to Abraham. Thus,
Lazarus is taken by the angels to “be with Abraham” in the NRSV, REB, and NLT,
and “to Abraham’s side” in the NIV and NET. A similar rendering is found in the
French La Bible en français courant, the Turkish Kutsal Kitap, and the Adyghe
and Lezgi translations from the Caucasus region of Russia. Although such a ren-
dering does convey the idea of closeness to Abraham, it misses the important
component of the special honor that Lazarus now has. It is true that if readers know
that Abraham is one of the founding patriarchs of the Jewish nation, they can
typically infer that it must be an honor for Lazarus to be near him. But even in this
case, such a rendering misses the idea that Lazarus is in the most important place
by Abraham’s side as the guest of honor.
To compensate for this gap in meaning, some translations explicitly bring out
this social component in addition to the spatial component. Thus, the CEVrenders
that Lazarus was brought to “the place of honor next to Abraham.” A similar ren-
dering is given by the Central Asian Russian Scriptures (CARS), as well as the
Chechen, Lak, Nenets, and Tuvan translations of Luke. In some languages, the
semantic component of “place of honor” may already be inherent in the spatial
term used to render κόλπος, in which case it would be redundant to add an overt
word indicating honor.
The fourth approach is the most explicit. It brings together all of the above
mentioned semantic components and adds one more, that of the specific social
setting at which this place of honor is located—a feast or banquet. The GNT/TEV
version of 1992 makes it explicit that Lazarus is brought “to sit beside Abraham
at the feast in heaven” (but misses that he sits in the place of honor). A few other
versions, such the CEV and the Spanish Dios Habla Hoy de Estudio version, put
this information in a footnote but not in the text proper. Although this type of
rendering may seem to some to be unduly free, we believe that it makes clear the
semantic components that are most relevant to this specific context. It also brings
out the structural symmetry in the parable’s composition by highlighting the con-
trast with the rich man’s earthly feast, adds discourse coherence to the parable’s
images, and connects this parable with other passages in the Bible that deal with
the eschatological banquet.
 “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM” (LUKE 16:22633 (23‫־‬

If the “place of honor” and “feast/banquet” meaning components are not

overtly included in a rendering of the κόλπος Αβραάμ metaphor, it loses a signifi-
cant part of the meaning that was originally present in the metaphor in Luke’s
composition of the parable. Interpreters and translators of this passage should
therefore do their best to maintain these semantic components in their rendering
of the metaphor, whether in the text or a footnote. As we have argued, this would
not be an “overtranslation” rendering, inasmuch as it makes explicit only compo-
nents that are implicit in the Greek original.
As a further suggestion for translators working on this parable, we would
recommend that they approach metaphors and other conceptual blends in terms of
Conceptual Blending Theory, which we have found to be especially useful for
thinking through the images involved and rendering them appropriately. A par-
ticularly relevant comment on this comes from SIL linguist and Bible translator
Ken McElhanon, who proposes that an additional translation space should be
incorporated into the integration network in order to translate conceptual blends:
“The content of this space will have metonymic links with the content of the SL
[source language] blended space and should allow for inferences to be projected
from the translation space to the target space that are comparable to those projected
from the SL blended space to the SL target space.”45 Thus, the translation space
should be added to the input section of the blend and be taken into serious consid-
eration. For the passage under discussion in this article, this space should include
the specific social setting of a feast or banquet with a special place of honor that
is culturally appropriate in the recipient culture.

VI. Conclusion
As this article demonstrates, being in Abraham s bosom should be taken as a
metaphor that plays a key role in the composition of Luke 16:1931‫־‬. In this parable
an opposition is evident between two banquets: the earthly banquet, at which the
inhospitable rich man feasts and there is no place for Lazarus, and the heavenly
banquet hosted by Abraham, who is known from the Genesis narrative for his
hospitality, where Lazarus is granted the most honored position. The metaphor
being in Abraham s bosom includes both the components “place of honor” and
“banquet.” This makes the structure of the parable symmetrical and the reversal of
the fates of the rich man and Lazarus more noticeable. These two components
should not be removed from the translation of “Abraham’s bosom,” because if they
are, the image loses a significant part of its meaning. Interpreters and translators
should do their best to maintain a semantic component related to feasting and honor
in their rendering, whether in the text or a footnote.

45 Kenneth A. McElhanon, “From Simple Metaphors to Conceptual Blending: The Mapping

of Analogical Concepts and the Praxis of Translation,” Journal of Translation 2 (2006) 3181‫־‬, here
69-70.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.